A new human being comes into existence during the process of fertilization.

Does monozygotic twinning prove that life begins after conception?

While the zygote's ability to reproduce itself early in pregnancy raises some ethical questions, there are plenty of reasons why this doesn't change the fact that individual human development begins at conception.

Growth in the womb is a rapid process; all systems are in place by week eight.

An accurate understanding of prenatal development makes it impossible to argue that abortion is the mere removal of undifferentiated cell tissue or that the developing embryo is simply a part of the mother's body.

The slogan, "My Body, My Choice," betrays a tragic misunderstanding of what is taking place inside the womb. At no point in pregnancy is the developing embryo or fetus simply a part of the mother's body.

It is unjust and inaccurate to classify certain human beings as “non-persons.”

By definition, humanity and personhood go hand in hand. Developing humans in the womb have an intrinsically personal nature and even demonstrate "personality" in many of the same ways that newborn babies do.

All abortion methods violate the most basic medical tenet: “Do No Harm.”

While some surgeries carry a risk of harm, abortion is intended to harm. It may be one of the most common surgical procedures in the world, but it is hardly a harmless one. A better understanding of the techniques involved makes this abundantly clear.

The original rendering of this historic creed explicitly condemns abortion.

The Hippocratic Oath was revolutionary in its unyielding devotion to the preservation of individual human life. It stood in marked contrast to the more primitive medical traditions that blurred the lines between killing and curing. In its original form, the oath prohibits both euthanasia and abortion.

There is significant debate over when in pregnancy a fetus can feel pain.

Whether or not abortion is painful for the child being aborted, the end result is the same. In talking about the question of fetal pain, we must remember that it ultimately has no bearing on the morality of abortion.

Pain is relative, but many women do find abortion to be physically painful.

Significant pain is often involved in the abortion procedure. This doesn't make abortion right or wrong, but the abortion industry's consistent efforts to downplay the physical pain of abortion hints at a broader agenda. They seem far more concerned with selling abortions than with giving women an accurate understanding of what abortion actually does.

Pictures help communicate what words, alone, often cannot.

Educators have long understood the appropriateness of using graphic photographs to teach about harsh realities. Nevertheless, the educative use of abortion photos is broadly condemned. This is politically-driven hypocrisy.

Photography has played a crucial role in the history of social reform.

For as long as photography has existed, graphic images have helped to inform and shape the public conscience. They take an abstraction and make it concrete. Atrocities that remain unseen are easier to trivialize and easier to ignore.

All Abort73 abortion photos come from working abortion clinics.

The Center for Bio-Ethical Reform (CBR) maintains the largest known abortion-image archive in the world and has meticulously verified the accuracy and authenticity of their photographs and video. The content of these pictures have not been digitally altered in any way.

It is reasonable and necessary for society to outlaw certain "choices."

The only way people can successfully live together in community is to give up a measure of personal freedom. Personal choices that infringe on the life or livelihood of another human being must be legislated against.

The right to not be killed supersedes the right to not be pregnant.

Some people believe that prohibiting abortion makes embryos and fetuses more valuable than grown women. This is untrue. Abortion is unjust because the right to not be killed is more fundamental than the right to not be pregnant.

Poverty, rape, disability, and “unwantedness” do not morally justify abortion.

There are a few scenarios that are commonly pointed to in an attempt to justify abortion. Since none of them can justify the killing of a human being after birth, neither do they justify the killing of a human being before birth.

The differences between embryos and newborns are differences that don't matter.

Human beings inside the womb are smaller, less developed, and more dependent than human beings outside the womb. These are differences of degree, not differences of kind. We can all point to other people who are bigger, stronger, smarter, or less dependent than we are, but that doesn't make our life any less valuable, or any less deserving of protection.

From an ideological perspective, there are many connections between abortion and slavery. Both fit the classic "pro-choice" model. Both are built on legal decisions which classified specific human beings as property–property that could be legally abused or destroyed.

Eliminating the "unfit" has always been a goal of the abortion industry.

Planned Parenthood, then called the American Birth Control League, once shared office space and board members with the American Eugenics Society. One of their avowed purposes was to improve the human race by preventing the “unfit” from breeding—through birth control and forced sterilization.

Like any act of homicide, abortion steals from its victims their future life.

One of the things that makes the death children such a unique tragedy is the fact that it "steals" from them the future life that should have been theirs. Nobody loses more of their future than children who are killed in the womb.

In the United States, black children are aborted at more than three times the rate of white children; Hispanic children are aborted at one and a half times the rate. Whatever the intentions of Planned Parenthood, abortion is eliminating an incommensurate number of minority children.

Around the globe, abortion is shrinking the female population at an alarming rate.

No matter what you believe about the ethics of abortion, there is no denying the fact that abortion has become the driving force in eliminating females around the globe. Estimates put the global gender gap somewhere between 100 and 200 million people.

Many abortion supporters have a huge financial stake in keeping abortion legal.

Abortion is a lucrative business. Those who defend it the most ardently often have a financial interest in keeping it legal and commonplace. Couple this with the abortion industry's consistent opposition to measures requiring more full patient disclosure, and there is good reason to wonder if they care more about profits than they do about women.

"Principled" support of abortion often brings significant financial perks as well.

Are all abortionists simply "in it for the money"? Probably not. But how many abortionists would there be if they had to volunteer their services, or even pay for the opportunity to put their principles in practice? It's very easy to follow your "principles" when those principles earn you lots of money.

Financial hardship is not a legitimate reason for taking an innocent human life.

Abortion is often sold as a means of avoiding financial stress. For a few hundred bucks you can free yourself from the cost of raising a child, while also freeing yourself from the eventual care and support of a grown son or daughter. In the process, you free society from the long-term production and influence of an utterly unique human being.

Abortion often leaves women with a lifetime of mental anguish.

The psychological implications of abortion are as disputed as the act of abortion itself. Whether or not Post-Abortion Syndrome is a real or imagined condition, there is no denying the fact that abortion has left countless women with feelings of profound regret.

The morality of abortion is not directly tied to the risks it poses to the mother. Giving birth certainly carries its own set of risk factors. Nevertheless, shouldn't a woman considering abortion know about the potential damage it could do to her own body?

America has become a more violent place for born children since abortion was legalized.

Pregnancy care centers help eliminate the financial burden of pregnancy.

In the United States, there are thousands of pregnancy care centers which all exist to help women through the emotional and financial stress of an unplanned pregnancy. Couple their services with the widespread availability of adoption, and it should become immediately apparent that women need not kill their "unwanted" children.

Apart from some kind of moral code, there can be no law.

Every law on the books serves as a reminder that we can and do "legislate morality". Unrestricted, personal "choice" is just another name for anarchy. When the Supreme Court invalidated all state laws against abortion, it was nothing less than the application of their own morality – one that believes you're not a person until you're born.

Elective Abortion flies in the face of classic feminism.

While feminism today in the U.S. is largely in favor of abortion, seeing it as necessary to ensure equality for women within society, the early feminists found abortion to be a societal evil that dishonored woman and killed children.

Prominent former abortion providers now firmly condemn the practice.

The stories on this page highlight the remarkable turnarounds of four former abortion-insiders–including the physician most responsible for the legalization of abortion in America. Taken together, they reveal abortion to be a grisly business that is built on deception, plagued by cover-ups, populated by unethical characters, and largely driven by greed.

Aborting women are vulnerable to the predatory behavior of unscrupulous doctors.

No matter what anyone believes about abortion in theory, no matter how adamantly a woman argues for abortion rights in public, most women go to great lengths to ensure that their own abortion remains a secret. This desire for secrecy gives abortion clinics lots of room to cover-up abuse.

The Bible makes no moral distinction between born children and unborn children.

The issue of abortion is never directly dealt with in Scripture, but it says plenty about children inside and outside of the womb. In light of what is explicitly stated about children, and what is explicitly stated about murder, it is fair to conclude that God hates abortion.

A look at the unique prominence the Bible affords to conception.

Starting in Genesis 4:1 and progressing throughout the Old Testament, there is a consistent pairing of conception and birth in Scripture’s family narratives. It is not unreasonable to conclude that God is giving special significance to both the sexual act of becoming pregnant and the decisive beginning of a new human life.

An examination of the adultery test found in Numbers 5:11-31.

Some abortion proponents attempt to justify the practice by referencing Numbers 5:11-31, which they believe to be a priestly form of ancient abortion. Making such use of this passage ignores two critical realities.

In writings from the beginnings of Christianity to the Reformation, Christians have stood uniformly against abortion, believing it to be an act of murder and deserving of God’s judgment. Because they viewed life in the womb as the object of God’s care, they believed it should therefore be the object of neighborly love.

God established government to keep sinful people from wronging each other.

Arguing that the government should never restrict "choice" is nothing more than an argument for anarchy. Anyone who understands the biblical role of government and deals honestly with the Bible's portrayal of human life (inside and outside the womb) should recognize that biblically speaking, the government must protect innocent human life.

Get Help

If you’re pregnant and contemplating abortion, what a mercy that you’ve found this website! Abortion is not the answer—no matter what anyone is telling you.